Critically looking at the way the government handles COVID

[Parththakkar12]

Do you agree or disagree with:

1. Lockdowns, martial Law, bringing the military onto the streets to enforce lockdowns.
2. Masks
3. Sanitizing your hands every x amount of time
4. Social Distancing. Is it worth the mental health problems/loneliness it will cause?
5. Printing trillions of dollars/Other economic measures like Stimulus packages. Are the lockdowns worth the economic ramifications?
6. Vaccination. If you agree, would you want it to be voluntary or forced?
7. Mainstream media reporting style
8. Social media censorship of 'conspiracy theories'

 

• Which of these would you want to be voluntary? Which of these would you want to be enforced?
• Which of these measures are worth the pain and suffering they cause? For which ones do the benefits outweigh the costs, for which other ones do costs outweigh the benefits?

Please give explanations for your answers.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Onemanwolfpac]

Imho, it is all political. A woman was arrested for opening up her business. She was released early but she was still put in jail. The economy waa great then pandemic. Now, it is OK to break distancing because riots and protest. 

For me, I am not surprised by the cowardice of people giving up their rights and livelihood. I don't think there's a better example of spineless. There's businesses and families who won't recover. IMHO its more orange man bad rhetoric than actually concerned with people and their well being. The running joke on 4chan is the cure for covid being rioting and protests. 

 

Let's be clear. The health and safety of the public is important but the WHO messed up and covered up for China. The numbers in many areas are blatant lies. There's many arguing about the effects of covid. It was imho a overreaction. It is real but it is affecting mostly the elderly or compromised. The world economy being turned off is not without consequences as is printing out counterfeiting money be it Floyd or world government. 

If anything is certain, leaders and experts were clueless and incompetent. More importantly, if this was bio weapon or actually more dangerous like The Stand by King, the majority of the world is dead sadly. It means that preparing for the next one is monumental to our success. Not riots looting or anything else stupid. Asking governments to save us is bone head move. 

[NatureB]

An ideal response to the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. would have been to hire thousands of medical workers to test for the virus and track it through contact tracking, create a national database to aide medical workers and hospitals, have a concerted response so that every state in the U.S. is taking the same precautions, ramp testing up to the amount needed (which I hear is 10% of the population - right now we have only tested 2% of the population). Having every state be on the same page would increase our sense of being all in this together as one country united, reduce pessimism, etc. 

We would not have buoyed the unemployment by adding an additional $600 per week per person, because now people do not want to go back to work. We should have tried a UBI of $2,000 per month per adult until this crisis is over.

Digging out of this mess will be long and hard. On the bright side, maybe we can increase the number of green infrastructure jobs and get a few million employed again. Our infrastructure sucks in the U.S. We still do not have a light rail in any one of our cities, not to mention between our cities.

 

I get a lot of my info and ideas from Andrew Yang. If this is a topic that interests you, any of his podcast episodes are great. Yang Speaks is the name of it.

[Onemanwolfpac]

On 16/06/2020 at 1:14 PM, NatureB said:

An ideal response to the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. would have been to hire thousands of medical workers to test for the virus and track it through contact tracking, create a national database to aide medical workers and hospitals, have a concerted response so that every state in the U.S. is taking the same precautions, ramp testing up to the amount needed (which I hear is 10% of the population - right now we have only tested 2% of the population). Having every state be on the same page would increase our sense of being all in this together as one country united, reduce pessimism, etc. 

We would not have buoyed the unemployment by adding an additional $600 per week per person, because now people do not want to go back to work. We should have tried a UBI of $2,000 per month per adult until this crisis is over.

Digging out of this mess will be long and hard. On the bright side, maybe we can increase the number of green infrastructure jobs and get a few million employed again. Our infrastructure sucks in the U.S. We still do not have a light rail in any one of our cities, not to mention between our cities.

 

I get a lot of my info and ideas from Andrew Yang. If this is a topic that interests you, any of his podcast episodes are great. Yang Speaks is the name of it.

IMO, it was the test pilot for UBI because people love to vote for free shit. Politicians love power. It is cyclical. People are reliant on government and i would go so far as to say, enslaved by governments. 

JOe Rogan called out the bone head about getting "some" of our rights back if people comply. IF! People are spineless and cowardly in giving up rights and freedoms. 

Covid is real. It was the damn 19th iteration. As in, we beat it 18x before. The way people resorted to being in the fetal position and grovelling to master government to come save them is telling. 

Lazy people. Make more getting printed money than going into work. 

UBI if and when AI and time travel takes. It promotes sloth. I saw a YouTuber post vlog going through garbage. It was all booze or fast food. 

Imagine, savings. A emergency fund. A career in stem. Not running to government to save us. Not reliant nor tolerating the removal of freedom and livelihoods. 

If anything is emphasised, our leaders are oblivious as are the masses reliant on to come save us. If covid was as bad, were all dead right now. Its nowhere as bad or protests wouldn't be allowed. 

Yang and Bernie all caved to the powers to be. They fell in line. The masses do too. 

 

[Consept]

I think if youre criticising the handling of it, and dont get me wrong there are things to criticise, how would you have dealt with it given the information that was given in February?  

[Parththakkar12]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

I think if youre criticising the handling of it, and dont get me wrong there are things to criticise, how would you have dealt with it given the information that was given in February?  

Maybe I wouldn't have destroyed the economy over a virus that kills 0.1% of people who get it, most of them being senior citizens.

[Consept]

29 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Maybe I wouldn't have destroyed the economy over a virus that kills 0.1% of people who get it, most of them being senior citizens.

I'm not sure that the info at the time was that it only kills 0.1% and that it's majority old people. Also here in the UK Boris Johnson initially said he was going down the herd immunity route and the whole country was in uproar. Further to that Sweden he didn't do a lock down have the most amount deaths compared to their scandanavian neighbours in some cases 10x more and the amount of anti bodies in the population is not much better than their neighbours, no where near enough for herd immunity.

If an uncertain decision was made, which plenty were of course, but something like not doing lockdown and the countries health system was not fully equipped which was the case in many places, it could've been a lot worse. 

 

[Parththakkar12]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm

The fall of the world economy is gonna kill a ton more people now.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm

The fall of the world economy is gonna kill a ton more people now.

I don't think the suicide rate is any higher than last year at least in the UK of course that could change but for now there's nothing saying the lockdown caused more suicides, not to say the lockdown didn't have issues, domestic abuse etc. 

The other thing is that if the economy can't survive a lockdown for 3 months then there's a lot of problems with the economy than we thought and it probably needed to be exposed. Hopefully we can move forward and either improve the system or overhaul it in favour of some form of socialism 

[Parththakkar12]

16 minutes ago, Consept said:

I don't think the suicide rate is any higher than last year at least in the UK of course that could change but for now there's nothing saying the lockdown caused more suicides, not to say the lockdown didn't have issues, domestic abuse etc. 

The other thing is that if the economy can't survive a lockdown for 3 months then there's a lot of problems with the economy than we thought and it probably needed to be exposed. Hopefully we can move forward and either improve the system or overhaul it in favour of some form of socialism 

I'm talking about:

• All small businesses collapsing
• Tons of layoffs happening
• Hyper-inflation that will happen because the Fed is printing trillions of dollars for 'stimulus packages'
• Food supply chains being disrupted, which will lead to food shortages. A lot of food is rotting right now because of supply chains breaking
• Mental health crisis because of lockdowns, social distancing

The police were extra careful to make sure all small businesses die, but they didn't do anything to stop the rioting and looting. I don't think this is an accident.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Consept]

@Parththakkar12

Ok so lets say, you were the prime minister of Britain, at the time your information was that if we dont lockdown 470,000 people will die (thats what some have said would be the number now without lockdown in the UK). So the question is would you confidently say that we wont do a lockdown knowing this number, so at best gambling with lives and possibly killing 470,000 people, most old but not all, or deal with the problems that youve highlighted? I agree they are issues but potentially will get better over time 

[Parththakkar12]

6 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Parththakkar12

Ok so lets say, you were the prime minister of Britain, at the time your information was that if we dont lockdown 470,000 people will die (thats what some have said would be the number now without lockdown in the UK). So the question is would you confidently say that we wont do a lockdown knowing this number, so at best gambling with lives and possibly killing 470,000 people, most old but not all, or deal with the problems that youve highlighted? I agree they are issues but potentially will get better over time 

I'd tell the people giving me the numbers to recheck them. It just doesn't seem believable that one little virus can kill that many people. There's tons of other viruses out there, and we're fine.

As a leader of a country, you must have the big picture in your mind and be able to prioritize effectively. You can't react to every insignificant little threat in such drastic ways. Now I understand this can sound like idealism. I'm fine with accepting that mistakes happen. This is why we're critically examining what they're doing.

The so-called 'experts' who were giving out the numbers made really sloppy calculation mistakes in reporting the stats. They said 'hundreds of thousands of people will die' when their work showed that actually, it's hundreds of thousands of cases with a small percentage of them actually dying.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Consept]

1 minute ago, Parththakkar12 said:

I'd tell the people giving me the numbers to recheck them. It just doesn't seem believable that one little virus can kill that many people. There's tons of other viruses out there, and we're fine.

As a leader of a country, you must have the big picture in your mind and be able to prioritize effectively. You can't react to every insignificant little threat in such drastic ways. Now I understand this can sound like idealism. I'm fine with accepting that mistakes happen. This is why we're critically examining what they're doing.

Im with you it should be examined, but my point is that what would you have done differently, im not saying that in a challenging way, im just saying examine what you would have done in that position yourself. 

Ultimately, people have talked about a virus killing a lot of people for the last 20 years, even George W warned about it, no preparations were taken, thats more the issue. This could have been dealt with easy if there was real pre-planning and preventative measures, Trump released a budget just before the outbreak that was going to cut funding to the CDC, so there really was nothing in the way of planning for this. 

Another point is that this is exactly the type of disease that could be dangerous because its in a sweet spot of not being very fatal (if its too fatal it wont spread ie ebola) but being quite contagious, which means that it can get around quickly and be deadly to the people it will be deadly to. So this is what the people that foresaw it were worried about. Even at a death rate of 0.2% if the whole world got it youre looking at around 14,000,000 deaths which is pretty significant, obviously thats simplistic and a worst case scenario but again I dont think you would take that gamble. 

13 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

I'd tell the people giving me the numbers to recheck them. It just doesn't seem believable that one little virus can kill that many people. There's tons of other viruses out there, and we're fine.

You can think its not believable but with due respect, youre not a virologist, so essentially you will be telling people who have dedicated their lives to the field that they were wrong and taking a gamble on that basis, in which people definitely wouldve died. If youd like context for it the Brazilian president did something similar and its been a complete mess there - https://www.nytimes.com/article/brazil-coronavirus-cases.html

[Bodigger]

2 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

The fall of the world economy is gonna kill a ton more people now.

Is this what Trump was attempting to communicate when he said we can't make the cure worse than the virus/

[Parththakkar12]

33 minutes ago, Consept said:

You can think its not believable but with due respect, youre not a virologist, so essentially you will be telling people who have dedicated their lives to the field that they were wrong and taking a gamble on that basis, in which people definitely wouldve died. If youd like context for it the Brazilian president did something similar and its been a complete mess there - https://www.nytimes.com/article/brazil-coronavirus-cases.html

Bolsonaro, Brazil's PM is also looking at this critically. He fears that local mayors will create their own little dictatorships in the name of COVID. Here's what he did:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/UCr8ievfyRoq/

The youtube video is an NBC news video showing a Brazil hospital having a lot of COVID deaths and casualties. The bitchute video shows members of the Brazilian parliament breaking into the same hospital and exposing on camera that the hospital is empty and that the report is fake.

Lets say we're done debating the numbers of the 'experts' and they turn out to be right. Even then, the big picture wasn't taken into consideration. I wouldn't react to it based on fear. I would maybe not tell people about the threat and not stir up panic. There are a lot of collective threats that the government doesn't tell the people about, that they just handle under the table.

I know it is a gamble. But when you have to choose between 2 gambles, I'd go with my gut and choose the one that isn't a fear reaction.

[Danioover9000]

@Parththakkar12

On 2020-06-12 at 0:01 PM, Parththakkar12 said:

Do you agree or disagree with:

1. Lockdowns, martial Law, bringing the military onto the streets to enforce lockdowns.
2. Masks
3. Sanitizing your hands every x amount of time
4. Social Distancing. Is it worth the mental health problems/loneliness it will cause?
5. Printing trillions of dollars/Other economic measures like Stimulus packages. Are the lockdowns worth the economic ramifications?
6. Vaccination. If you agree, would you want it to be voluntary or forced?
7. Mainstream media reporting style
8. Social media censorship of 'conspiracy theories'

 

• Which of these would you want to be voluntary? Which of these would you want to be enforced?
• Which of these measures are worth the pain and suffering they cause? For which ones do the benefits outweigh the costs, for which other ones do costs outweigh the benefits?

Please give explanations for your answers.

1. I agree with the lockdowns, because it does slow down the spread of the virus, but with martial law, I say it depends. If a country's populace is still conducting wide-spread social gatherings despite government issuing lockdown, I think that before martial law, the government should enforce more police enforcement firstly because involving the military too early does more psychic stress to the populace. Martial law should be considered if on top of not reducing social gatherings, that there are escalating protests, especially rioting and looting. I think context-sensitive to enforcement.

2. Masks are great to have if you yourself have the virus and wouldn't want to spread it and does offer some protection for yourself. Depending on the resources of a country, there should be more consideration on more than just wearing masks but on supplying more equipment on red zones and zones likely to be hit harder. Context-sensitive enforcement.

3. I agree with this point. Personally, I already have a habit of washing my hands which helps prevent not just COVID but other diseases from spreading. I think this is important as a habit for most people. Keep yourself clean! The government should figure out a program for indoctrinating this in. 

4. I'm divided on this point. I say I agree because I know that I can tolerate the loneliness and any other mental stresses that come with isolation because I have hobbies and activities like yoga, chi-gong, meditation, concentration, contemplation, self-inquiry, reading, advanced visualization techniques, and so on. I believe you are responsible for your mental health, and I understand that a majority would be scarce and diverse in how they handle loneliness and mental stresses so I think isolation is worth the risk, but this is relative.

5. If you have expertise in financing, economics, and investing then you could negotiate potential risks.

6. Personally, I think it should be mandatory. The majority will take the vaccines though.

7. I think if they stuck with the facts, and less fear-mongering, the better.

8. I agree that for the time being, censorship is best right now because these conspiracy theories are just stockpiling more fear.

   I'm not an expert on these issues so my explanation might be shallow. 

[Consept]

4 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Lets say we're done debating the numbers of the 'experts' and they turn out to be right. Even then, the big picture wasn't taken into consideration. I wouldn't react to it based on fear. I would maybe not tell people about the threat and not stir up panic. There are a lot of collective threats that the government doesn't tell the people about, that they just handle under the table.

I know it is a gamble. But when you have to choose between 2 gambles, I'd go with my gut and choose the one that isn't a fear reaction.

i wouldnt say its fear, fear would be that theres no basis to be worried about it and then you over react based on not a lot. I would say there was a lot of basis to be worried about covid considering what happened early on in Italy. Me personally it wouldve been too much of a gamble to say 'despite strong advice from all of my advisors and experts, im going to risk the lives of a few 100 thousand people so our economy can stay open, i have no basis for this decision other than i dont trust my advisors and i dont think a disease can be that bad'. I honestly dont think many people wouldve have made that gamble, for example would your gamble your own families life in such a manner? 

A sensible position would be to lockdown initially and then get as much research and what not so you can make an informed decision rather than just say no lockdown without sufficient information. 

The Brazil bitchute vid would need more context, i dont know whats being said, if its new, nothing, so i cant really comment on that, as in i would need more information before making a reaction 

 

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Parththakkar12

1. I agree with the lockdowns, because it does slow down the spread of the virus, but with martial law, I say it depends. If a country's populace is still conducting wide-spread social gatherings despite government issuing lockdown, I think that before martial law, the government should enforce more police enforcement firstly because involving the military too early does more psychic stress to the populace. Martial law should be considered if on top of not reducing social gatherings, that there are escalating protests, especially rioting and looting. I think context-sensitive to enforcement.

2. Masks are great to have if you yourself have the virus and wouldn't want to spread it and does offer some protection for yourself. Depending on the resources of a country, there should be more consideration on more than just wearing masks but on supplying more equipment on red zones and zones likely to be hit harder. Context-sensitive enforcement.

3. I agree with this point. Personally, I already have a habit of washing my hands which helps prevent not just COVID but other diseases from spreading. I think this is important as a habit for most people. Keep yourself clean! The government should figure out a program for indoctrinating this in. 

4. I'm divided on this point. I say I agree because I know that I can tolerate the loneliness and any other mental stresses that come with isolation because I have hobbies and activities like yoga, chi-gong, meditation, concentration, contemplation, self-inquiry, reading, advanced visualization techniques, and so on. I believe you are responsible for your mental health, and I understand that a majority would be scarce and diverse in how they handle loneliness and mental stresses so I think isolation is worth the risk, but this is relative.

5. If you have expertise in financing, economics, and investing then you could negotiate potential risks.

6. Personally, I think it should be mandatory. The majority will take the vaccines though.

7. I think if they stuck with the facts, and less fear-mongering, the better.

8. I agree that for the time being, censorship is best right now because these conspiracy theories are just stockpiling more fear.

   I'm not an expert on these issues so my explanation might be shallow. 

I agree with with pretty much all of your points 

[Onemanwolfpac]

5 hours ago, Consept said:

I think if youre criticising the handling of it, and dont get me wrong there are things to criticise, how would you have dealt with it given the information that was given in February?  

Trump for all his many faults blocked travel. He was called racist. WHO colluded and protected China. If it had been half as bad as projected, were all DEAD. If it was Smyth like Stephen King's The Stand, it would be over. 

Organizations that colluded must be held accountable. If China closed up parts while allow travel globally; consequences must follow. 

I am not paid to handle it. If I was, anybody with compromised immunity should have been isolated. The Chinese government must disclose and warn the world. Shutting down businesses or arresting a woman to survive wasn't a solution. 

 

On a positive note, WE'RE LUCKY as a human race for a second chance. Instead of celebrating this as a W, we have race baiting and public riots globally during pandemic. This has left me to believe that it was all political orange man bad. Let small and family businesses to reclaim power. 

We must be prepared for IF and when the real pandemic or bio weapon occurs. We may not be so lucky next time. The people should be celebrating a great victory. Instead, we have riots, people destroying their cities, murder, and race baiting. 

[Consept]

17 minutes ago, Onemanwolfpac said:

Trump for all his many faults blocked travel. He was called racist. WHO colluded and protected China. If it had been half as bad as projected, were all DEAD. If it was Smyth like Stephen King's The Stand, it would be over. 

Organizations that colluded must be held accountable. If China closed up parts while allow travel globally; consequences must follow. 

I am not paid to handle it. If I was, anybody with compromised immunity should have been isolated. The Chinese government must disclose and warn the world. Shutting down businesses or arresting a woman to survive wasn't a solution. 

 

On a positive note, WE'RE LUCKY as a human race for a second chance. Instead of celebrating this as a W, we have race baiting and public riots globally during pandemic. This has left me to believe that it was all political orange man bad. Let small and family businesses to reclaim power. 

We must be prepared for IF and when the real pandemic or bio weapon occurs. We may not be so lucky next time. The people should be celebrating a great victory. Instead, we have riots, people destroying their cities, murder, and race baiting. 

Its a big stretch to say Trump handled this well, he made many mistakes and was set on ending the lockdown in April which wouldve been a disaster. China could have done much better as well. I think in most places those with compromised immunity were isolated. But it is a hard job to be in charge when something like this happens, i think preventative measures are key so hopefully everyone learns for next time